The court modified the tribunal's reinstatement order to a lump-sum compensation, emphasizing that a single fault in a long service period should not justify dismissal.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J..

Petitioner - BCH Electric Limited, formerly known as Bhartia Industries Limited/Bhartia Cutler Hammer Limited (here-after referred to as, 'the petitioner-management), has preferred this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of award dated 27.02.2013, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby reference, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), has been answered in favour of the workman. For ready reference, conclusions recorded and the relief granted by the Tribunal, are summarized hereunder:

a) Charges levelled against the workman were fake and bogus;

b) Domestic enquiry was not fair & proper;

c) Termination of services of workman is not justified;

d) Workman is ordered to be reinstated in service, with continuity and 50% back wages; and

e) Management to pay arrears of wages within two months from the date of award.

It is also relevant to notice that operation of the impugned award, was ordered to be stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, at the time of issuance of notice of motion, vide order dated 20.05.2013.

2. Facts pleaded by respondent No. 2 - Jeevat Singh (workman) are that he was appointed by the petitioner-management on 15.02.1973, as a Sheet Metal Fitter. Vide order dated 26.09.2001, he was placed under suspension, and charge-sheet dated 04.10.2001 was issued against him, levelling bogus allegations. On 31.10.2001, when the said workman came to the factory gate and marked his attendance, he was asked to appear before Shri. N.S. Rajput, Enquiry Officer in the enquiry, in the factory office premises, where some of the officials were sitting. The workman was informed that inquiry against him is being conducted and his signatures are required. Thereupon, on 4-5 papers, on which something was already written, signatures of the workman were obtained. He was assured that all the papers would be sent at his residence and he was asked to go out. No time was given to him to read those papers. Smelling some foul play by the officials acting on behalf of the management, a general strike was declared in the factory by the workers, w.e.f. 05.11.2001. The workman was neither paid suspension allowance nor supplied any documents. Finally, said strike was called off on 10.01.2002. Thereafter, the workman was never allowed to join his duty in the factory. In January 2002, the workman was informed by the management and the Union leaders that his services were dismissed. Finally, he was handed over copy of the dismissal order dated 27/29.11.2001 (wrongly typed as 27/29.11.2002' in the impugned award), alongwith a copy of the enquiry report dated 02.11.2001, and two pages of enquiry proceedings dated 31.10.2001.

3. Case set up by the management is that on account of misconduct of the workman, he was charge-sheeted and enquiry was conducted on 31.10.2001. The workman confessed his guilt during enquiry, and confessional statement was also signed by him.

4. After completion of pleadings, the Tribunal vide order dated 23.05.2005, framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the termination of services of workman is justified or not, if not, what relief he is entitled to? OPA

2. Whether the reference is bad in law? OPR

3. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management has not been fair and proper? OPA

4. Relief."

5. Though, it is not happily worded, however, while considering Issue No. 3, after noticing the arguments advanced by the Authorised Representative of the workman in detail, and without referring or discussing the evidence led by respective parties or assigning any reasons, the Tribunal straight away rushed to the conclusion that the charges levelled against respondent No. 2 - workman are fake and bogus. Hence, it has been held by the Tribunal that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner-management was not fair and proper. Thereafter, without giving any specific rea